The English Language Part 42

5. _He_ of the vowel series.

6. _Vaw_ of series P.

7. _Zayn_ ---- 8. _Kheth_ of series K.

9. _Teth_ of series T.

In this second sequence the _relative_ positions of _v_, _kh_, and _t'_ are the same in respect to each other, and the same in respect to the vowel series. The sequence itself is broken by the letter _zayn_, but it is remarkable that the principle of the sequence is the same. Series P follows the vowel, and series T is farthest from it. After this the system becomes but fragmentary. Still, even now, _pe_, of series P, follows _ayn_; _tau_, of {212} series D, is farthest from it; and _koph_, of series K, is intermediate. I am satisfied that we have in the Hebrew alphabet, and in all alphabets derived from it (consequently in the English), if not a system, the rudiments of a system, and that the system is of the sort indicated above; in other words, that the order of the alphabet is a _circulating order_.

In Mr. Donaldson's hands this view is not only a fact, but an instrument of criticism:--"The fact is, in our opinion, the original Semitic alphabet contained only sixteen letters. This appears from the organic arrangement of their characters. The remaining sixteen letters appear in the following order:--_aleph_, _beth_, _gimel_, _daleth_, _he_, _vaw_, _kheth_, _teth_, _lamed_, _mem_, _nun_, _samech_, _ayn_, _pe_, _koph_, _tau_. If we examine this order more minutely, we shall see that it is not arbitrary or accidental, but strictly organic, according to the Semitic articulation. We have four cla.s.ses, each consisting of four letters: the first and second cla.s.ses consist each of three mutes, preceded by a breathing; the third of the three liquids and the sibilant, which, perhaps, closed the oldest alphabet of all; and the fourth contains the three supernumerary mutes, preceded by a breathing. We place the characters first vertically:--

Aleph [Alef] First breathing Beth [Bet] B } Gimel [Gimel] G } _Media._ Daleth [Dalet] D } He [He] Second breathing.

Vaw [Vav] Bh } Kheth [Khet] Gh } _Aspirate._ Teth [Tet] Dh } Lamed [Lamed] L } Mem [Mem] M } _Liquids._ Nun [Nun] N } Samech [Samekh] S _The Sibilant_.

Ayn [Ayin] Third breathing.

Pe [Pe] P } Koph [Kuf] K } _Tenues._ Tau [Tav] T }

In the horizontal arrangement we shall, for the sake of greater simplicity, omit the liquids and the sibilant, and then we have {213}

_Breathings._ _l.a.b.i.als._ _Palatals._ _Linguals._

[Alef] [Bet] [Gimel] [Dalet]

[He] [Vav] [Khet] [Tet]

[Ayin] [Pe] [Kuf] [Tav]

In this we see, that, while the horizontal lines give us the arrangement of the mutes according to the breathings, the vertical columns exhibit them arranged according to the organ by which they are produced. Such a cla.s.sification is obviously artificial."

-- 269. _Parallel and equivalent orthographies._--Let there be in two given languages the sound of _k_, as in _kin_. Let each of these languages represent it by the same letter, _k_. In this case, the two orthographies are identical. Let, however, one nation represent it by _k_, and another by c. In this case the orthographies are not identical, but parallel. The same is the case with combinations. Let one nation (say the Anglo-Saxon) represent the sound of _y_ (in _ye_) by _e_, whilst another nation (the Norse) represents it by _j_. What the Anglo-Saxon spells _ceaster_, the Northman spells _kjaster_; and what the Northman spells _kjaere_, the Anglo-Saxon spells _ceaere_. Let the sound of this _ce_ and _kj_ undergo a change, and become _ksh_; _kjaere_ and _ceaere_, being p.r.o.nounced _kshaere_.

The view of the Northman and Anglo-Saxon will be the same; each will consider that the compound sound differs from the simple one by the addition of the sound of _y_; that sound being expressed in one nation by _e_, and in the other by _j_. In this case the two expressions of the compound sound are parallel, its elements being considered the same, although the signs by which those elements are expressed are different.

Let, however, a different view of the compound sound be taken. Let it be thought that the sound of _ksh_ differs from that of _k_, not by the addition of the sound of _y_, but by that of _h_; and so let it be spelt _kh_ or _ch_. In this case the orthographies _kh_ and _kj_ (or _ce_) are not parallel, but equivalent. They express the same sound, but they do not denote the same elements. The same sound is, very possibly, expressed by the Anglo-Saxon _ce_, the Norwegian _kj_, and the English _ch_. In this case _ce_ and _kj_ are parallel, _ce_ and _ch_ equivalent, orthographies.

{214}

PART IV.

ETYMOLOGY.

CHAPTER I.

ON THE PROVINCE OF ETYMOLOGY.

-- 270. The word etymology, derived from the Greek, in the current language of scholars and grammarians, has a double meaning. At times it is used in a wide, and at times in a restricted, sense. What follows is an exhibition of the province or department of etymology.

If in the English language we take such a word as _fathers_, we are enabled to divide it into two parts; in other words, to reduce it into two elements. By comparing it with the word _father_, we see that the _s_ is neither part nor parcel of the original word. The word _fathers_ is a word capable of being a.n.a.lysed; _father_ being the original primitive word, and _s_ the secondary superadded termination. From the word _father_, the word _fathers_ is derived, or (changing the expression) deduced, or descended.

What has been said of the word _fathers_ may also be said of _fatherly_, _fatherlike_, _fatherless_, &c. Now, from the word _father_, all these words (_fathers_, _fatherly_, _fatherlike_ and _fatherless_) differ in form, and (not, however, necessarily) in meaning. To become such a word as _fathers_, &c., the word _father_ is changed. Of changes of this sort, it is the province of etymology to take cognizance.

Compared with the form _fathers_, the word _father_ is the older form of the two. The word _father_ is a word current in this the nineteenth century. The same word was current in {215} the first century, although under a different form, and in a different language. Thus, in the Latin language, the form was _pater_; and earlier still, there is the Sanskrit form _pitr_. Now, just as the word _father_, compared with _fathers_, is original and primitive, so is _pater_, compared with _father_, original and primitive. The difference is, that in respect to _father_ and _fathers_, the change that takes place, takes place within the same language, whilst the change that takes place between _pater_ and _father_ takes place within different languages. Of changes of this latter kind it is the province of etymology to take cognizance.

In its widest signification, etymology takes cognizance _of the changes of the form of words_. However, as the etymology that compares the forms _fathers_ and _father_ is different from the etymology that compares _father_ and _pater_, we have, of etymology, two sorts: one dealing with the changes of form that words undergo in one and the same language (_father_, _fathers_), the other dealing with the changes that words undergo in pa.s.sing from one language to another (_pater_, _father_).

The first of these sorts may be called etymology in the limited sense of the word, or the etymology of the grammarian. In this case it is opposed to orthoepy, orthography, syntax, and the other parts of grammar. This is the etymology of the ensuing pages.

The second may be called etymology in the wide sense of the word, historical etymology, or comparative etymology.

It must be again repeated that the two sorts of etymology agree in one point, viz., in taking cognizance of the _changes of form that words undergo_. Whether the change arise from grammatical reasons, as _father_, _fathers_, or from a change of language taking place in the lapse of time, as _pater_, _father_, is a matter of indifference.

In the Latin _pater_, and in the English _father_, we have one of two things, either two words descended or derived from each other, or two words descended or derived from a common original source.

In _fathers_ we have a formation deduced from the radical word _father_.

{216}

In _fatherlike_ we have a compound word capable of being a.n.a.lysed into the two primitive words, 1. _father_; 2. _like_.

With these preliminaries we may appreciate (or criticise) Dr. Johnson's explanation of the word etymology.

"ETYMOLOGY, N. S. (_etymologia_, Lat.) [Greek: etumos] (_etymos_) _true_, and [Greek: logos] (_logos_) _a word_.

"1. _The descent or derivation of a word from its original; the deduction of formations from the radical word; the a.n.a.lysis of compounds into primitives._

"2. _The part of grammar which delivers the inflections of nouns and verbs._"

{217}

CHAPTER II.

ON GENDER.

-- 271. The nature of gender is best exhibited by reference to those languages wherein the distinction of gender is most conspicuous. Such a language, amongst others, is the Latin.

How far is there such a thing as gender in the English language? This depends upon the meaning that we attach to the word gender.

In the Latin language, where there are confessedly genders, we have the words _taurus_, meaning a _bull_, and _vacca_, meaning a _cow_. Here the natural distinction of s.e.x is expressed by _wholly_ different words. With this we have corresponding modes of expression in English: _e.g._,

_Male._ _Female._ | _Male._ _Female._ | Bachelor Spinster. | Horse Mare.

Boar Sow. | Ram Ewe.

Boy Girl. | Son Daughter.

Brother Sister. | Uncle Aunt.

Buck Doe. | Father Mother, &c.

The mode, however, of expressing different s.e.xes by _wholly_ different words is not a matter of gender. The words _boy_ and _girl_ bear no _etymological_ relation to each other; neither being derived from the other, nor in any way connected with it.

-- 272. Neither are words like _c.o.c.k-sparrow_, _man-servant_, _he-goat_, &c., as compared with _hen-sparrow_, _maid-servant_, _she-goat_, &c., specimens of gender. Here a difference of s.e.x is indicated by the addition of a fresh term, from which is formed a compound word.

-- 273. In the Latin words _genitrix_=_a mother_, and _genitor_=_a father_, we have a nearer approach to gender. Here the difference of s.e.x is expressed by a difference of termination; {218} the words _genitor_ and _genitrix_ being in a true etymological relation, _i. e._, either derived from each other, or from some common source. With this we have, in English corresponding modes of expression: _e. g._,